Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I would have Daniels warn Archer of the Xindi plan. Daniels wasn't a member of his crew, and Archer isn't at liberty to tell SF about him. Besides they won't believe him.

Archer tells his officers about Daniels. He "steals" Enterprise.

But if there were no initial attack, there would've been no 9/11 allegory, which was pretty much the whole point of the season. Star Trek at its best engages with real-world issues and contemporary concerns. "A Private Little War" was a Vietnam allegory; The Undiscovered Country was an allegory for glasnost and the fall of the Iron Curtain; and the Xindi arc was an allegory for 9/11 and the subsequent debate over how far to compromise our ethics in the name of self-defense. Take away the initial attack and its psychological impact on Earth society and the NX-01 crew, and you strip the season of its relevance and meaning. Not to mention the character threads you lose -- Archer wrestling with his conscience over how far to go, Trip mourning his sister, T'Pol being motivated to resign from the High Command in protest of their refusal to help Earth in its time of need, Degra having to live with the horror of what he'd done, etc. Plus you never would've had "Demons"/'Terra Prime," one of the high points of the whole series. If there'd never been a successful Xindi attack on Earth, then the wave of xenophobia that fed Terra Prime wouldn't have occurred.

I would have Daniels warn Archer of the Xindi plan. Daniels wasn't a member of his crew, and Archer isn't at liberty to tell SF about him. Besides they won't believe him.

Archer tells his officers about Daniels. He "steals" Enterprise.

But if there were no initial attack, there would've been no 9/11 allegory, which was pretty much the whole point of the season.

Star Trek at its best engages with real-world issues and contemporary concerns. "A Private Little War" was a Vietnam allegory; The Undiscovered Country was an allegory for glasnost and the fall of the Iron Curtain; and the Xindi arc was an allegory for 9/11 and the subsequent debate over how far to compromise our ethics in the name of self-defense. Take away the initial attack and its psychological impact on Earth society and the NX-01 crew, and you strip the season of its relevance and meaning. Not to mention the character threads you lose -- Archer wrestling with his conscience over how far to go, Trip mourning his sister, T'Pol being motivated to resign from the High Command in protest of their refusal to help Earth in its time of need, Degra having to live with the horror of what he'd done, etc. Plus you never would've had "Demons"/'Terra Prime," one of the high points of the whole series. If there'd never been a successful Xindi attack on Earth, then the wave of xenophobia that fed Terra Prime wouldn't have occurred.

I do get the analogies: to 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan. I just think that when you're treading in fiction, you need to make the story more credible than real life.

Of course, the mechanisms of ENT would have allowed for a unique dodge here: the attack could have taken place, and then have been undone by time travel. Or could have taken place in a future Archer was shown, in advance, so that there would be time to stop the attack before it became unstoppable. You'd get an impending doom that you already saw happen.

But ENT could have used the same mechanisms for a more interesting threat: that of a massive attack being launched based on the results of the scouting mission - before the scouting mission... For all we know, this is exactly what the Sphere Builders promised the Xindi, and they either lied, or were unable to pull it off because of Archer's interference. It would make some plot sense that the final weapon was in fact intended to be deployed in the 1940s, which is why Archer and later the others got pulled there, even if the big weapon never made it that far.

I recall something my father said once about how people tend to have blind spots about their enemies. The thing is, we all know that if our own country (whatever that may be) were attacked or conquered, it would just fire up our anger and national pride and inspire us to fight back all the harder. Yet somehow, countries throughout history have tended to assume that the same would not be true for their enemies, because their enemies are inferior and craven and would thus be cowed into submission by a show of force. So countries keep attacking or oppressing their enemies in the belief that it will defeat and demoralize them, but it usually has the opposite effect and backfires upon the attackers or oppressors. So Imperial Japan bombs Pearl Harbor and as a result we dismantle the empire; and conversely, the CIA helps overthrow a populist Iranian leader in favor of a US-friendly dictator, and as a result there's a populist revolution that turns Iran into one of our biggest enemies. Not to mention all the dictatorial regimes that have oppressed and terrorized their own people in the belief that it would keep them docile, only to provoke them into revolution instead.

You'd think that eventually people would learn to expect this sort of thing, to know that attacking or oppressing another nation -- or their own people -- would just backfire and lead to their defeat or overthrow. Yet century after century, people still don't get the message. They still assume that the other guy will react differently to threat or oppression than they themselves would, that the same things that would inspire themselves to greater determination and rage would instead break their enemies' spirits and leave them defeated forever. It's a bizarre but perennial blind spot.

So maybe that's why the Xindi attacked Earth with the test probe rather than some uninhabited moon somewhere -- because they thought it would demoralize humanity and leave us too afraid to strike back. It doesn't make sense, but then, it never has before, yet people keep trying it anyway. It's just the blind spot of xenophobia, the assumption that your enemy is fundamentally different from yourself and doesn't have the same virtues such as courage or patriotism or love for family to inspire them to fight back.

Philosophy aside, there's also the fact that Earth would never have known where the attack came from, or where to find the Xindi, if Future Guy hadn't tipped off Archer. So as far as the Xindi knew, Earth should've been unable to identify or locate their attackers in time to prevent the final attack. So they would've deemed the risk of retaliation low enough to justify launching an attack for the purpose of demoralizing the enemy.

That's not always the case. The US bombed Japan with nuclear weapons, and Japan surrendered. It didn't motivate them to fight back harder.

That's not always the case. The US bombed Japan with nuclear weapons, and Japan surrendered. It didn't motivate them to fight back harder.

The Japanese thought the United States had more atom bombs, and were afraid one would be dropped on Tokyo. They didn't know the only two available were used, and the U.S. didn't tell them otherwise. Had they known, the war might have continued even longer.

That's not always the case. The US bombed Japan with nuclear weapons, and Japan surrendered. It didn't motivate them to fight back harder.

Well, nothing applies 100 percent of the time, of course. If humans were that simple and predictable, history would be a lot simpler too, and fiction would be a lot more boring.

But it's worth keeping in mind a couple of things there. One, the actions of the Japanese military before and during WWII didn't really have a lot of support from the Japanese people or even the emperor. At least, the whole thing was driven by the military's ambitions and they used extensive propaganda to shape public opinion in their support. But their efforts proved a dismal failure and left Japan devastated and impoverished.

Two, more importantly, the victors who occupied Japan after the war did not oppress or punish the Japanese people, but helped them rebuild their society and economy. So they didn't make the mistake of thinking that beating down the other side would make them docile. They understood that constructive engagement was a better approach. Contrast that to the allies' harshly punitive treatment of Germany after WWI, which created great resentment and frustration among the German people and helped provoke the rise of Nazism.

My father made his observation in response to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides keep using force to try to break the other side down, yet it always just provokes more force in retaliation, and they just can't seem to see that violence against the other side only makes things worse for their own side. You'd think by now they would've caught on that it's just not working and they need to try a different approach.

There was even an attempted coup d'etat within the Japanese military, in an attempt to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam offer. At least two officials were murdered for refusing to join, but the major conspirators of the failed coup committed suicide before the peace treaty was signed.

Best is to attack their supply lines, next best is to attack their armies, worst is to attack their cities. If Sun Tzu could figure that out, I think maybe the Xindi could figure out the same thing.

I think the best plot explanation is 'Reptilians are morons'.

One other possible theory, of course, is that people came back from the 35th century to stop people from the 31st century from preventing people from the 33rd century from stopping the 27th century people from warning Daniels that if he doesn't tell Captain Braxton to enlist Seven of Nine to make sure the Xindi send the initial attack, the Tox Uthat will be used to destroy Earth in the 28th century.

Because that would be far less unnecessarily convoluted than the actual Enterprise timeline.

All posts attempting to rationalize the mistake of the probing attack fail. Of course it gave away some information, but it did not give away the vital information. That came from Future Guy. The conclusion is inevitable, the Xindi did not make a mistake. Earth was only saved by a miracle out of the future.

Archer being Future Guy would nicely explain that, as the onscreen explanation really is insufficient. Other actions of Future Guy would then be explained as Archer following the script because he wanted the payoff in saving Earth with the warning. (Plus consequences of changes in Archer's perspective on the Suliban after detention, etc.)

Carpenter Street did not establish any ability to send massive amounts of equipment such as the final weapon back in time. The spheres were being built in real time, otherwise they could have been replaced instantly by spheres built at leisure somewhen else.

The Japanese government had already begun efforts to negotiate a surrender. The insistence on unconditional surrender, coupled with the ruthless extermination of all Japanese, probably did far more to extend the war. But unlike the European theater unconditional surrender was not a necessity to maintain an alliance between powers sharing unequal burderns. (The USSR was the nation that defeated the Nazis, even if the rest were in at the kill.)

Israel's resort to force has provided it with ever increasing amounts of Palestinian land, which is why it refuses to quit relying on violence, force and the threat of force. The Palestinians as a whole have never received any concessions whatsoever when they have not resisted. Only a handful of collaborators have been rewarded for acting as Israel's police, against the majority. Morally equating the actions of oppressors and oppressed is obscene.

__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.